Job Growth Per Presidential Term (In Millions)
Millions of Jobs Added
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 – 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 – 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 – 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 – 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 – 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 – 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 – 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 – 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 – 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 – 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 – 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 – 2000 11.5
Bush Jr 2001 – 2004 (0.1)
Bush Jr 2005 – 2008 5.1
// ]]>
So, W gets his tax cuts and TWO WARS so he should have had gangbuster job growth right? After all Republicans tell us that FDR didn’t get us out of the Depression. It was WWII. Well hell, W had two wars with TRILLIONS being expended so it only follows that he would get that big war time economy boost like FDR. Where is his humming economy? Well it isn’t here is it? These numbers show that the Tax Cut for the Rich = JOBS is a LIE. THE BIG LIE. NO MORE, REPUBLICANS. NOT THIS TIME!
For that matter. Look back and see who gives you jobs. The Party that delivers jobs is Democratic, not Republican. Vote for your self-interest for once people. Don’t swallow the BIG LIE administered with large dollops of Race Baiting, Religious Hatred & Fear. Don’t fall for it again America. The GOP deserves to have their asses kicked for what they have done to this country. Now is the time.
==========================================================================
Also, Kev provides us with these fascinating unemployment statistics:
Republicans create unemployment, Democrats solve it.
01/53 End of the Truman Administration, unemployment = 2.9% (D)
01/61 End of the Eisenhower Administration, unemployment = 6.6% (R)
01/69 End of Kennedy/LBJ Administration, unemployment = 3.4% (D)
01/77 End of Nixon/Ford Administration, unemployment = 7.5% (R)
01/81 End of the Carter Administration, unemployment = 7.5% (D)
01/89 End of Reagan Administration, unemployment = 5.4% (R)
01/93 End of Bush(41) Administration, unemployment = 7.3% (R)
01/2001 End of Clinton Administration, unemployment = 4.2% (D)
01/2009 End of Bush(43) Administration, unemployment = 7.6% (R)
See a trend? That’s right: Democrats KEEP YOU EMPLOYED!
Huffington Post Article with BLS Source Info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_124510.html
Related posts:
10:09 pm
The government cannot create jobs! Wtf are you people talking about?
The only jobs they create, are government jobs! Which do nothing but eat up tax payers money! Think about it, if you work for the government, then they have to take your money to pay you in the first place! The more the government pays it’s employees, the more it has to steal from them to pay them! Seems quite moronic to me!
9:58 pm
We need Sarah Palin as our next President for 8 years. She will implement Palinomics which will create more jobs than every President before her combined. Unemployment will go down to ZERO in the Palination and nobody will be poor.
10:10 pm
Yeah and see how much more we go into dept!
3:47 pm
@ William Create your own blog instead of telling others how to manage theirs.
8:30 am
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
11:04 am
Here’s the deal. We can all argue all day long as to who was what, when where. I have a simple, simple question for the Repubs in this thread.
Show me Republican doctrine/thought that ended up becoming passed legislation that actually HELPED the majority of Americans. i.e. the true small business person or disadvantaged……
11:50 am
Don’t hold your breath waiting for anyone to list anything. Using math terms, that would be the Null Set.
10:12 pm
show me one by a democrat first!
4:23 am
Here’s another quote from William that is captious:
” I, too, was in the mortgage industry and know all about liars loans, a function of the CRA”
The Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. It worked perfectly throught Carter admin, the Reagan admin, GHWB admin and the the Clinton admin. Thats about three decades of absolutely stellar results. The CRA was not the entity that created the housing bubble, which is what collapsed in 2006.
Consider Ken Mehlman’s own words on the push to have low income minority people take on mortgages:
“Home ownership has always been an important element of the American Dream, and Hispanic-Americans have made enormous progress thanks to the hard work of many families and the innovative policies of the president. Hispanic home ownership is at an all-time high with 50 percent of Hispanics owning their homes. We must expand the ability of Hispanic families to earn and save more, which is why the tax cuts should be made permanent and why personal retirement accounts should be available to those who live paycheck to paycheck.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3777.html
Not only did Mehlman push for low income minorities, President GWB did so as well in a speech he made with HUD director Mel Martinez. In this speech the president directs GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) to provide the low interst loans for low income people. Keep in mind the link is to a right wing libertarian site:
“Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it’s good for the pocketbook of the country, as well.
To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don’t have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can’t cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate. And so we’ve called upon Congress to set up what’s called the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which will provide financial grants to local governments to help first-time home buyers who qualify to make the down payment on their home. If a down payment is a problem, there’s a way we can address that. And when Congress funds the program, this should help 200,000 new families over the next five years become first-time home buyers.
Secondly, affordable housing is a problem in many neighborhoods, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. … I’m doing is proposing a single-family affordable housing credit to encourage the construction of single-family homes in neighborhoods where affordable housing is scarce. (Applause.)
Over the next five years the initiative will provide home builders and therefore home buyers with — home builders with $2 billion in tax credits to bring affordable homes and therefore provide an additional supply for home buyers. ”
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/24/2002-bushs-speech-to-the-white-house-conference-on-increasing-minority-homeownership/
Finally through the GOP run Congressional Budget Office in 2003, we see the Republican’s own support of increasing the housing bubble to unsustainable heights by boost subsidies to the GSEs:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5368&type=0
So you see, IF William is a professor, he is a very bad professor. Anyone can challenge his authority on any topic by doing the simplest of internet searches.
11:56 pm
Whatever happened to “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”. Why does everything have to have a credit rating wrapped around it today? Why aren’t people earning enough money to put some of it away for a home?
I think we should first fix the economic system that controls the prices of building supplies first. When the prices for these items are closer to their actual value, a house would be more affordable to everyone!
10:13 pm
Worked perfect for who? Bankers!
3:00 am
Ive never seen such a bigger tool, lie and brainwashed individual in my life (talking about william here)
Apparantly william worked in the morgage sector, as a teacher, whats next a banker? I call shenans untill he provides some proof (schools, diploma’s, etc)
12:23 am
The thing I have always admired about Economics professors, and Economists in general, is how they can relate so well to what has already taken place. Look to the future, dammit, and try to forecast that! Any idiot can read “statistics” (another field where numbers tell whatever truth the purveyor wants them to!). We all know what has happened in the past, and what this or that President did forty years ago, while painting a picture of that time, is largely irrelevant today. I just read a quote today that seems to describe what most of us think of Economists:
“Economists are probably the one group who make astrologers look like professionals when it comes to telling the future.” – James Montier (from The New Normal)
12:15 am
My question is for William, I have seen you repeatedly quote this: “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly negative impact on output” while “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects. Of particular interest were four big tax cuts – in 1948 under President Harry Truman; in 1964 under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson; in 1981 under Ronald Reagan and in 2001 and 2003 under Bush – which had positive effects on growth. At one point, the Romers turned the growth finding around to write that a “tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3 percent.” – Dr. Christina Romer, OBAMA’s outgoing Chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. SMH.
Can you give examples of how the Bush tax cuts improved anything at all…I seem to recall a recession at the end of those tax cuts…
11:03 pm
William sounds like a typical republican ass-hat and at this point has spewed forth almost every talking point the libertarians can throw around. I neither believe he was a teacher nor an economist. Just another righty spouting off bullchit with his thesaurus in front of him! For thinking Americans, the only value in his posts is comedic value. Really, do these people never tire of parroting the words of other oafs?
I would block him too. Obviously he likes to “hear himself” speak much more than anyone else does. Nothing new here.
11:03 pm
William, what would the employment rate have been if our men and women were home and not overseas fighting 2 wars?
think about that!!!
also your facts on the mortgage crisis, if Greedy bankers had not duped so many people into adjustable rate mortgages, I believe there would not have been such a crisis, also, if the Government (Bush) had not given tax breaks to his friends (the rich) our deficit would not be what it is.
don’t forget about the wars we had to pay for, that added to the deficit.
fact is Bush and the Rep. party has driven this counrty into the ground!!!!
11:07 pm
to add to my post, if corporate greed did not move so many jobs overseas, maybe some people that ended up losing their jobs would not have defaulted on their mortgages.
I still say unemployment would have been twice what it was under Bush if our men and women were home instead of overseas.
what is your answer to that William?
10:24 pm
William is the typical Austrian school of economics internet sock puppet. Is he a Dem? He says he is, but his entire rhetoric contradicts him. Hence he’s a sock puppet.
Regardless he left of all the the structural economic data that contributes to UE rates, totally avoided the actual data shown which is job creation, purposely omitted data on poverty levels and wealth concentration, totally avoid the types of jobs that were lost under GWB as compared to Obama and purposely omitted income data. Being a professor of captious arguements is the only thing Willy has demonstrated here.
The only real site BIll uses is the BLS. The JEC is the result of Republicans in the House producing a bias report that spans the Reagan years and states the Reagan tax cuts stimulated the economy. And that’s true. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy to about 40 cents on the dollar. All you have to do is take a look at the size of the cuts vs the actual growth.
However the Clinton economic expansion had a tax increase and stimulated the economy more. Plus Clinton left office with a $238 billion “budget “surplus. Such issues were definitely inherited when GWB took office as opposed to Obama who took office with a swing in debt of -7.5 trillion dollars, a loss on the Dow of over 7000 points with the highest one day loss ever and the worst housing market in US history. Try creating jobs with that waiting for you. But Obama did. And while the UE rate remain stagnant, the job creation continues under Obama but certainly dwindled under Bush. Bill probably can’t figure out why. You see those BLS stats are stat. They don’t continue gauging perpetually and claims that are old were wiped from the surveys by the methodology. TheLA times, NY times and several professional economic experts reported it. The true UE rate under GWB was @ 9.6% with a negative job growth, shrinking income for working class people and the greatest concentration of wealth in all history. I guess Bill doesn’t teach history. Any true economist would say that. Which is probably why Willy makes his living teaching. As they say, those who can not do…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_measures.svg
12:20 pm
+1
9:13 pm
William- If I suspected you were a moron on your first post, you have clearly confirmed it by now. You would have been wise to shut the f up so we might still be guessing.
7:45 pm
William Twisting the facts
You state “The numbers above represent the unemployment rates during Bush’s 8 years. Surely you know that Economists consider “Full Employment” about 5.5% Unemployment (look it up).
Hence, in 78 out of Bush’s 96 months in Office Unemployment was at Full Employment or below. Whereas under Obama our nation has never been less 2.2% ABOVE Full Employment.”
The problem with your statement is very simple. Bush took office with the UE rate at 4.2% and stable, therefore he was handed an economy that supported an UE rate under your magical 5.5% mark. By the time Obama took office he was handed a UE rate of 8.2% and in free fall, well above your magical number. Don’t you think that’s kinda of hard to have an average rate below a number when you start well over that number and the rate had nearly doubled in the year prior to you entering office? Do you really think that’s a fair comparison, or do you think that really shows your bias?
7:44 pm
NOTE TO DELAWARE
It is well and good for you to vote for Christine O’Donnell for Delaware Senator. Appearing on Hannity tonight she comported herself extremely well. She was poised, very articulate, gracious to her critics, and her message was sharp, clear, focused, and Constitutionally consonant. She dispelled any lingering myths about her past bubbling up into her present — much as President Obama did about his past cocaine use — and convinced this well educated graduate level educator that she’s ready to lead America back to her Constitutional roots. Go Vote for her!
9:01 pm
The idiot lost! Thank God the better candidate won. Faux news is illogocal nonsense.
12:17 pm
that you would even think of her as anything OTHER than a joke, well, let’s just say that that does NOT accrue to your credibility.
11:35 am
The fact that you honestly think this brainless traitor would be good for anything other than cleaning the toilets at a soup kitchen full of people who are there because of greedy traitors like herself, does not make you look very intelligent or patriotic.
7:44 pm
@ Ray, et al
@ Ray: Wrong again. I, too, was in the mortgage industry and know all about liars loans, a function of the CRA, and the fact that banks made loans they were pushed to by Pelosi, Frank, Waters and others who guaranteed that Fannie and Freddie would buy them. No bank that had to keep those loans on their balance sheet would have made them. But under pressure to get a good CRA score, from the Dems, and with the promise of being able to unload them at a profit to Fannie and Freddie they did what they were practically forced to do in a highly competitive environment. Blame the people who created, enforced, lied for the CRA and the GSEs.
We Economics types actually know the facts.
Need proof? Here you go:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2010/09/economic-reality.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
7:44 pm
@ William
I am not an admin to any part of this, I am not a teacher. I was a financial advisor, mortgage servicing agent and mortgage loan officer who correctly predicted this fall and was fired because I tried to call atention to problems while working for financial companies. I called it in 2004. Piss off man, I actually know what happened having seen thousands and thousands of loans, seen the regulations, seen the loan officers push and lie to get the deal, I have seen what the greed does to people. I was there on the front line trying get someones attention. I left the industry indisgust. Most people had know idea that they signed loans designed to fail, did you know that? Most alt rate loans were sold as fixed for the first three to five years then it could change a little. Many companies had a policy that you had to push there debt to income ratio past 55% not including taxes and insurance (any insurance). Then the rates would change and thier payments went up by 33% or more and then an escrow acount gets thrown on. thse are just a few things I have seen not just in one loan but thousands upon thousands. (McCain’s, Reagan’s, and Bush’s deregulation of the bank industry allowed this to happen.)
The problem with economists is you guys get hooked on your theories and miss the small stuff, the stuff that matters.
11:47 am
concur with you– former mortgage portfolio broker, literally sold a Bn in SubPrime ["SP"] paper to AIG, and made the same analysis three months after entering the mortgage side of finance.
Gramm-Billey and no requirement to keep the B piece– THAT was the core.
we’re still going to see high loan default rates through year end as the Alt-A 5/25s written in the last full year are hitting their first reset. 2007 lending died out starting Q2.
SP is no longer at issue– they were the same garbage as Alt-A but all written as 2/28– IOW, those suckers have already been bled dry.
IMHO, MMoore’s “Capitalism” hit it dead on.
BTW, also a former equities trader/ marketmaker for DB as well as a Law grad with a concentration in securities law/ 10b-5 law
your citation to authority on philosophical grounding of economic theory is questionable– i’m thinking you taught at Beck U.
7:43 pm
@ Ray, et al
“High unemployment has cast a shadow on Americans’ collective psyche that will only darken with higher taxes, raising the already-uncomfortable odds that the economy will suffer a double-dip recession,” says the new analysis by Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, who has been an adviser to House Democrats and to 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain.”
” . . . the plan by Democratic leaders to end current tax levels for families making more than $250,000 could do serious harm, reducing real gross domestic product by 0.4 of a percentage point in 2011, cutting payroll employment by 770,000 and raising the unemployment rate by almost 0.4 of a percentage point by mid-2012, the peak of the impact.
And the real-world response by higher earners could make the impact somewhat worse, the analysis concludes, particularly in consumer spending, where higher-income earners account for about one-fourth of all U.S. personal outlays.
In addition, small-business hiring also could be affected: “Consider that nearly one-half of the $1 trillion in taxable business income earned in 2009 accrued to business owners who will face higher taxes. …It should also be reiterated that in these stressed times, business owners, like households, may not respond the same way to higher tax rates as they would in more normal times. Raising taxes on successful small business owners when conditions are so difficult could have material negative economic consequences.”
Mark Zandi is one of the most respected, sourced, and quoted Economists of our era; much more so than that Hyper-Keynesian, economic hack turned Progressive New York Times editorialist, Paul Krugman.
This is Economics 101 for you. Learn your first lesson well.
7:43 pm
@ Ray
By the way, Ray, IF you’re the Admin to the disrespectful and falsely named, “”Republicans Are Idiots And Arguing With Them Is A Waste Of Time!” by Addictinginfo.org,” I CHALLENGE YOU to unblock me and let me DEBATE you and your ilk right there on FACEBOOK, so that everyone’s argument will either stand or fall upon the internal merits and veracity, not your mendacity. If you’re a true and honorable patriot you’ll unblock me; if as I suspect you’re a coward, you’ll fearfully keep me blocked and NOT invite a fair and balanced debate!
What will you do? Remain cowardly or step up and show some bravery? What would a Classical Liberal do? A Neo-Liberal would turn chicken and run!
7:42 pm
@ Ray
You fail to differentiate between Classical Liberal and Neo-Liberal, more properly Progressive Professional Class. That’s your error and why you’re not qualified to teach anyone except the ignorant and uninformed.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” — Barry Goldwater. Usurpers of the Constitution, to wit: Progressives, not unlike obedient Muslims worldwide, are patient people. They didn’t co-opt education, morality, virtue, politics, media, art, sexuality, culture, and economics all at once; they did so over the last century. And they did so precisely because they took their time, wore a genial face, balmed us with assurances that they were righting previous wrongs, correcting previous mistakes, freeing us from moral bondage, and truthing previous falsehoods.
In short, while most Constitution-loving, free-market, liberty-enjoying Americans avoided the fields of education, politics, civics, media, Hollywood, and community organizing in favor of the free market, business, and wealth creation and enjoyment, Progressives infiltrated the same. And they’ve co-opted the ideological high-road derived from the likes of Cicero, Montesquieu, Whitefield, Blackstone, Locke, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, John and Samuel Adams, Calvin, Luther, Adam Smith, Friedman, and especially Moses, St. Paul and Jesus, and substituted Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Tito, Chavez, Fanon, Alinsky, Cloward & Piven, Cone, and more recently Cass Sunstein.
While Conservatives were busy creating wealth and enjoying the freedoms afforded them by the Constitution, Progressives were busy undercutting the Constitution and setting the stage to co-opt the wealth Conservatives created to redistribute it FIRST to themselves via high taxation and remuneration packages now equal to twice the average private sector salary and benefits package, and secondly to those who either bought their ideological balm and chose dependence over independence or, who through no fault of their own, fell prey to injury, disease or infirmity. While America slept comfortably Progressives grew in number and set the stage for our current nightmare.
What used to be extreme: anything derived from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and their ilk, has now become the accepted norm; what was the norm, Constitutionally prescribed limited government, low taxation, free markets, virtue, little or no debt accumulation, and liberty and justice for all, has been deemed extreme by the Progressive Professional class who have become our thought leaders and opinion makers. And so the effort by the TEA Party and their like-minded sympathizers to reclaim what was the norm, and to do so within two elections — the space of ONLY two years — is being labeled as extreme by the Progressives who will not relinquish their power accumulated over 100 years readily or easily.
Don’t be fooled. We have all had the wool pulled over our eyes! The result? An education system that produces shameful results within the developed AND developing world; a $13,500,000,000,000 National Debt; annual $1,000,000,000,000 federal budget deficits; Unfunded Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Program topping $110,500,000,000,000 (these programs were the brainchilds of Progressives and are one of the main reasons our federal government is de facto insolvent); looming tax increases; government-controlled healthcare coupled with rising premiums and 20 sovereign States suing the State over the same; the State suing the sovereign State of Arizona because the latter did the job that the former is Constitutionally-mandated to do but continues to fail to do; chronic and acute unemployment with nearly 15,000,000 Americans without a job; businesses sitting on over $1,000,000,000,000 of cash but who refuse to invest and hire because the State has over-regulated them, threatens to further tax them, has verbally lambasted them as greedy, selfish, and the main reason we’re in the economic trouble we’re in, and because they have little or no “visibility” regarding near-term free-market viability; the threat of card check; the prospect of Cap and Tax under which, in President Obama’s own words, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket;” and Progressive members of Congress who have readily admitted that, “most of what we do is NOT in the Constitution,” and who replied, “Are you kidding me, are you kidding me!?” when asked where in the Constitution Congress was given power to regulate healthcare!”
No, TEA Partiers are NOT kidding anyone. In fact, they’re tired of being kidded and they’re angry at not only the usurpers but partly at themselves for having been so naive, non-vigilant, and so trusting of the Progressive Professional class. And their righteous anger and indignation now appears extreme to the Progressives because what they needed 100 years to accomplish the TEA Partiers are threatening to undo between November 2, 2010, and November 6, 2012.
An extreme “sitz im lebem” calls for extreme measures, and the TEA Party and their ilk will be voting to replace the Progressive extremists with extremely Constitutional, liberty-loving, free market, low taxation, and virtuously conservative patriots!
7:42 pm
Foolish former teachers
@ William
If you were a teacher then it is no wonder that the word former is part of your title. Liberal minds include John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine. Liberal ideals encompas democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, captialism, science, free trade, and the separation of church and state. That’s the one that gets you is’t it William, church and state. Or is it those nasty Human Rights.
Now you might try to say but Thomas Jefferson was a republican, it was a different republican party. The republican party the formed in the 1850′s was named after Thomas Jeffersons party and they were orginially Liberal. The Rpublican party began to change in the 1940′s to 1960′s and then again with the great idiot Reagan and his ilk in the 80′s with their trickle down effect. An Idea that you have to be a complete fool to believe could ever work. The idea that corporate greed would allow money to flow to employees and not into ceo pockets is absurd. Also did not happen, see the last 20 years.
How dare you call Locke a conservative, he was the father of liberalism. Read your freaking history. You stoop to calling liberals communists and marxists because like the neo conservatives of the bush regime that is best you can do is call names and attack people. You dare call me ignorate and arogant and you then say that. Just like every thing else you have said YOU ARE WRONG. You call me a marxist and a communist because I believe in democracy and human rights and capitalism not repression of truth, Religous oppression of science and advancement. You dare call me a fool.
You want to make this personal? How about this by naming Locke a conservative when he was the founder of liberalist movement proves without a shadow of a doubt that your claims of have done research are bull, that you are a complete fool and have no idea what you are talking about. Where did you teach so I know not to hire any of your students? Listen do you research start simple there is a site called wikipedia a good place to begin to learn how to research subjects. after a few years maybe you could move up to libraries.
7:42 pm
@ Ray
For a peek at the level of ignorance of Far-Leftists who trade their liberty for a sign whose message they don’t understand and can’t match to reality, have a look see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv-YL7c&feature=player_embedded
CAUTION: You’re going to be very embarrassed for your Leftist movement. It was painfully shameful. Please don’t watch if you can’t bear the truth.
9:34 pm
liberalism was a product of the english religious wars, was instrumental in the american revolution, and the modern views of “leberal” were established post-french revolution.
for you to say that liberalism is from marx shows that you don’t know jack.
9:39 pm
There is nothing the drug-addled (by his own admission), non-educated entertainer Glenn Beck says that isn’t inflamatory, spun out of all sense, or just plain lying. His intonations, assumptions, leaps of poor logic, and heavily-edited history amount to a side-show of hate speech. He brings fear where it isn’t necessary, pushed blame around like a bulldozer. Any time GB is brought into a political discussion it is automatically suspect.
11:33 am
did you actually link to Breitbart & Beck?
REALLY?
sorry, but i must call BS on your claims of degrees and professorships based on THAT alone
– BTW, i didn’t have weekly quizzes in undergraduate OR grad school– WhereTF did YOU teach?
7:41 pm
@ Ray
Your ignorance is exceeded ONLY by your arrogance. Liberal ideology derives from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Fanon, and their ilk. There is NO other source from whence it derives. Conservatism derives from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Locke, Cicero, Adam Smith, and their ilk. Neither occurs in a vacuum. Fruit is born from its own tree; not the tree of others. You cannot look at modern day Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Alinsky-ism, Machiavellianism, and NOT trace it directly back to Marx and his cohorts. The only fruit we can expect from the fruit of Marx’s derivative tree is atheistic, eugenic, immoral, social and economic poppycock; for none other grows on this tree and its vines.
We will remember in November and you’ll be returning to your Communist Manifesto to search for reasons why; and you’ll find nothing there except an inane and mendacious insistence that man is good — he’s sinful — and only a power-hungry, Marxian government can help him reach his good potential. 100,000,000 dead good collectivists later we know otherwise.
7:41 pm
Foolish former teachers
William try reading my comments where do I say I hate our country? where do I say I support Marxism? Liberal Policy is not Marxism and if you have an education past eigth grade you’d know that. So Where do you come off with that? I am not ignorant to economics or civics I happen to understand a great deal of it such as corporate greed will destroy an ecomomy every time unless it is kept in check by regulations. No society has survived without those. Hence My point at John McCain and his goons. Also if the repubilcans are so good why can’t they put forth one viable solution and why do they roadblock every thing.
William I name you and republican and an Idoit and I have nothing further to say to a lowlife scumball like you. Get a life or a brain or jump in front of a train. It makes no difference to me.
7:39 pm
@ Ray
No, I will not shut up as long as you continue to 1) hate our country, 2) preach Marxist doctrine and foolishness long ago discredited in theory and practice, 3) do NO due diligence, 4) make mendacious claims that Republicans profit from a U.S. industry going under, 5) remain ignorant about Economics and Civics, 6) teach our children lies, and 7) cling like a sycophant to the losing party in November.
I forgive your ignorance, malevolence, and hatred. God forgive you, too.
7:39 pm
@ Ray
How much Aristotelian Logic did you study in college? Where did you get your degree in Economics? When did you teach Finance and Economics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels for at least 7 years? Do some Due Diligence BEFORE you make a further fool of yourself:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
“tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly negative impact on output” while “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects. Of particular interest were four big tax cuts – in 1948 under President Harry Truman; in 1964 under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson; in 1981 under Ronald Reagan and in 2001 and 2003 under Bush – which had positive effects on growth. At one point, the Romers turned the growth finding around to write that a “tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3 percent.” – Dr. Christina Romer, OBAMA’s outgoing Chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. SMH.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F07%2F29%2FBUFJ1EL7QG.DTL
Your opinions constructed upon a dearth of factual evidence are about as trustworthy as Obama’s repetitively made promise, “The healthcare debates will be broadcast upon C-Span.” Stop sticking up for our incompetent President now suffering horribly from the Peter Principle, just as Democratic Presidential Candidates Biden and Hillary predicted — he is NOT qualified to be President of the United States. Even Obama, in a rare moment of clarity and understanding, stated:
“I am the President of the United States; the buck stops with me.” Followed shortly thereafter with, “Don’t make excuses. Take responsibility not just for your successes, but for your failures as well.” Would that President Obama would follow his own High School Graduation advice and stop excusing himself for the failure of his decisions and blaming the decisions of a retired former President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifa_2MR8_LQ
Stop making excuses for POTUS. If he thought the job was too tough he should have run.
7:39 pm
Foolish former teachers
@William If this kind of reasoning was used by you in classes to teach students you ought to be ashamed of yourself. This is some of the worst logic I have ever seen from some one who calls themselves a teacher. Its a good thing the former was included. President Obama has to deal with the absolutely worst economic miss handling this country has ever seen caused by idoitic mishandling of the mortgage industry by some of the dumbest representives or county have ev er seen. I don’t just blame Bush though his use of an economic system that can never work was abmismal (in that I refer to reaganomics, side note Reagan was the worst president the US has ever seen). McCain and the deregulationist movement caused all of this to happen. The collaspe happen just before bush left office leaving Obama with an economy in freefall no regulations, a broken tax system, the Iraq war which I believe cost more then Obama has spent on the economy and the afgan war, a broken and failing healthcare system and a republican party that will not do anything to help anyone.
Example the republicans attack Obama for the stimulus package that saved the auto industry. How many jobs were saved? a Quater of a million or more? The most vocal against the measure like Mitch McConnell don’t meantion that Toyota and other foriegn car makers are in thier state and were bailed out by thier own countries dom they? Or that it was in the republicans best interest to see US car companies go under because they would personally profit from it.
Another example: Please explain the to stimulus packages that Bush inacted including the one that had no strings attach for the banking industry?
William do us all a favor and shut up, You clearly don’t have anything worthwhile to say… Thank god you are a former teacher and not a current one because the youth of today doesn’t need anymore bad influences
7:38 pm
Response to BWS, Rafael, and David
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
The numbers above represent the unemployment rates during Bush’s 8 years. Surely you know that Economists consider “Full Employment” about 5.5% Unemployment (look it up).
Hence, in 78 out of Bush’s 96 months in Office Unemployment was at Full Employment or below. Whereas under Obama our nation has never been less 2.2% ABOVE Full Employment. These are facts without spin. The point is that there were was far, far fewer unemployed people under Bush than under Obama. If you’re one of the nearly 15,000,000 unemployed people that is all you know and all you care about — you don’t have a job and you want one; and you likely had a job during 8 years of Bush.
Add the fact that Obama has driven our national debt up by another $3,000,000,000,000, of which about $1,000,000,000,000 was for STIMULUS, resulting in a net LOSS of 3,100,000 Jobs, and you have by an important, measurable metric, the worst performance by a president in over 60 years. This is a fact based upon an objective metric; not spin.
Add the fact that despite the fact that Obama has majorities in the House and Senate, he and is Progressives continue to govern without the consent of the governed: majorities are opposed to Obamacare, to Stimulus, to raising taxes on ANYONE, to suing AZ over an Immigration Law that 60% of the nation supports and 20 States are considering replicating, to trying KSM in New York, to implicitly supporting the building of a conquest “rabat” within the perimeter of destruction at Ground Zero, to business bailouts, to privatizing the American auto industry, and to the feckless accommodation of rogue nations like Iran and N. Korea.
BTW, the accusation of “coward” was directed at the Administrator of the Facebook Page, “Republicans Are Idiots And Arguing With Them Is A Waste Of Time!” by Addictinginfo.org, for cowardly Blocking me from posting there after I came with factual data disputing virtually every feckless, vituperative, unsupported claim he was making. In short, he couldn’t defend the 1st amendment in the face of withering erudite critique and that is the epitome of intellectual cowardice.
AND, I am a registered Democrat!
And hence I was echoing Ronald Reagan when he stood at the Berlin Wall and stated, “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall!” by telling the Admin, “Remove the blockade against me and let’s debate fairly and factually!”
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
7:38 pm
The numbers
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
1961 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.0
1962 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.5
1963 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.5
1964 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.0
1965 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0
1966 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
1967 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8
1968 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
1969 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5
1970 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1
1971 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0
1972 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2
1973 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.9
1974 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.9 6.0 6.6 7.2
1975 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
7:37 pm
Is there a need for name calling?
@William. Alright if the claim is that the unemployment lows were due to Bush (43)’s policies, then please look before that (1992-2000) the downward trend for unemployment was really Clinton’s working and lasted until Clinton’s term ended I believe. If you looked at the labor graph, there was a rise in Bush’s Unemployment (9/2001-9/2003 w/6.3% @ the highest) before a gradual deflation down to 4.4%. The real rise in unemployment started in May 2008 with 5.4% and that was Bush’s reign not Obama’s.
7:37 pm
@ William,
you kinda lost me when you started the ‘cowardice’ subject line post. 18 months is not enough to save the economy from absolute free-fall. I can see where your point is coming from, that this article in general is not an accurate depiction of a successful or unsuccessful tenure, but to quote Bush’s average as somehow being a success at all shows your own bias and ability to bend the truth to your own partisan means..
You then went on some ridiculous angry rant asking for sources, when the source is right there in the post (huffington post)..
Perhaps you should write the huffington post and complain.
7:37 pm
@ Johnny: You’re talking to a former college professor of Finance and Economics. I gave regular homework and quizzes for grades every week, and mid-terms, and finals every semester, not just once every year or four years. The BLS reports unemployment data every month. The fact is that President Bush presided over record low average unemployment over 8 years — please tell me you looked at the link I provided to see that unemployment remained under 7% for all but one month out of 96 months of Bush’s 2 terms, and remained under 6.4% for all but 3 months out of 96. Here’s that link again, just in case: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
Remember, under NO DURESS did President Obama make the promise that with his stimulus unemployment would NOT go above 8%. The same month he promised this it went to 8.2% and hasn’t been below 9% since May 2009!
But on the subject of the Reagan Tax Cuts listen to CLINTON’s Joint Economic Council:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
and to outgoing White House Council of Economic Advisers, Chairwoman, Dr. Christina Romer:
“tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly negative impact on output” while “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects. Of particular interest were four big tax cuts – in 1948 under President Harry Truman; in 1964 under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson; in 1981 under Ronald Reagan and in 2001 and 2003 under Bush – which had positive effects on growth. At one point, the Romers turned the growth finding around to write that a “tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3 percent.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F07%2F29%2FBUFJ1EL7QG.DTL
More important than the number of new jobs created is the number of people with no job. Right now, under Obama, there are 14,900,000 people with no job, far more than at any time under Reagan or Bush 41 and 43.
7:36 pm
William, let’s be honest
William, I love the sly way you “averaged” the unemployment rate for Reagan and Bush. That allows a president who takes office with a low unemployment rate, but makes it higher, look better than he really was, and a president who comes in with a high unemployment rate, but makes it better look worse. It’s kinda like grading on a curve, wouldn’t you think?
The end of a president’s term is the report card on his administration. You can’t grade Obama when he’s only had one budget. You wouldn’t grade someone’s paper after they’d only finished the first question out of eight, would you?
7:36 pm
@ actually: No excuse. His 18 months in office completely abrogates the specious claim above.
11:04 pm
@William J. Green: Well, let’s add in Obama’s numbers, shall we? We’ll even do you a favor, and use Karl Rove’s numbers- subtracting the jobs lost during Obama’s first 5 months in office, between February and June 2009, despite those being a clear result of the Bush recession. Then, we’ll do the math and find the monthly average of jobs created during each term, so that we’re not comparing apples-to-oranges.
According to Rove, Obama has created 3,675,000 jobs, minus 2,611,000 jobs lost between February and June 2009 (his first 5 months in office.) That gives us a figure of 1,064,000 jobs created from February 2009 through December of 2010, a period of 22 months. We’ll round that off to 1.0 million, just to be conservative.
Administration TERM Jobs Created (millions) Avg Monthly Jobs Created
Harding/Coolidge Rep 1921-1925 +4.5 93,750
Coolidge Rep 1925-1929 +2.6 54,167
Hoover Rep 1929-1933 -6.4 -13,333
FDR Dem 1933-1937 +5.5 114,583
FDR Dem 1937-1941 +3.3 68,750
FDR Dem 1941-1945 +7.4 154,167
FDR/Truman Dem 1945-1949 +2.8 58,333
Truman Dem 1949-1953 +5.5 114,583
IKE Rep 1953-1957 +2.7 56,250
IKE Rep 1957-1961 +0.8 16,667
JFK/Johnson Dem 1961-1965 +5.9 122,917
LBJ Dem 1965-1969 +9.9 206,250
Nixon Rep 1969-1973 +6.2 129,167
Nixon/Ford Rep 1973-1977 +5.1 106,250
Carter Dem 1977-1981 +10.3 214,583
Reagan Rep 1981-1985 +5.3 110,417
Reagan Rep 1985-1989 +10.8 225,000
GHW Bush Rep 1989-1993 +2.6 54,167
Clinton Dem 1993-1997 +11.5 239,583
Clinton Dem 1997-2001 +11.2 233,333
GW Bush Rep 2001-2005 +2.9 60,417
GW Bush Rep 2005-2009 +1.1 22,917
Obama Dem 2009-2010 +1.0 50,000
Well, gee, it looks like Obama’s created more jobs, on average, during the ‘Great Recession’ than either Bush or Ike created during their second terms.
12:18 pm
*swoon*
;-)
7:36 pm
Besides being vitriolic, vituperative and vulgar, you’re also cowardly. I joined your Facebook Group to refute your half-truths and specious, invective laden claims. And you cowered like a fearful child and fearfully blocked me from making further fact-based, erudite refutations.
Man up. Show the world you’re NOT a coward and a feckless intolerant and unblock me: William J. Green
Otherwise, let it be known that you’re nothing but a vulgar partisan who knows no joy except what you get from being prejudicially bigoted and ignorant.
7:35 pm
William, Obama was omitted because he hasn’t even finished a term yet.
7:34 pm
Your Sources
Where’s the link to your statistics? My sources conflict with your anonymous source regarding the number of jobs created under Reagan and Bush 43. The average unemployment rate under Bush 43′s eight years was 5.1%; under Obama thus far it has averaged 9.5%.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
You also conveniently omitted President Obama as follows:
Net Jobs (millions) Avg. Annual Decrease
Barack Obama D 2009- 133,549 130,419 (Jun. 2010) -3.1 (Jun. 2010) -1.6% (Jun. 2010)
1:28 pm
In a way, I agree with you. I think there’s a lag in the numbers–that a past President’s policies carry over several years into the term(s) of his successors, and that how long varies depending on those policies.
Thus, I believe that Carter got us out of the Nixon/Ford Recession; that Bush (41) reaped what Reagan sewed, and that continuing the Reagan Devolution also weighed down Clintion’s numbers; and that Obama inherited a mess (though his cave-man tactics, caving in to continue some of the miserable policies that got us into this mess, like massive tax cuts for the already wealthy, have harmed us as well).
There’s also the issue of how unemployment is measured. The way the statistics are kept changed. The legislation was passed during the Carter Administration and took affect during the Reagan administration. The new method of tracking unemployment made the numbers much smaller. This is only conjecture, but I suspect that the list given here uses the older method throughout–and I suspect that it did not quote the Obama numbers because it came out before the end of his first term.
Still, I, too, would like to know the source of these numbers, if for no other reason than to shut up Libertarians, taxobabblers and other superstitious fools.
7:34 pm
Job Creation is better Under the Democratic Party across the board….WoooHoo Clinton and carter <3
The GOP almost destroyed America…the voters made their voices heard, and Obama is taking us back to the great country we know we can be. YES WE CAN!!!